Can you disprove this secular argument against evolution?

Yes it was done, by intelligent design. So are you saying that functional bio-structures are intelligently designed?

I am aware of this standard just so story of evolution - evolution starts with pre-existing materials and modifies them. But this is just fiction, wishful thinking, something totally unrelated to reality.If we suppose that this semantically correct word - "technology" is the pre-existing material, then random modification won't magically transform this material into new semantically correct word - "chemistry" for e.g., but into gibberish, something like this: "ttufwefjkl". This is the reality of things compossed of building blocks or particles - they exist as tiny clusters of meaning or function in a vast empty space of gibberish or non-function.That is why when you start to randomly change the positions of particles is the pre-existing bio-material, enzyme for e.g., you won't end up with new functional enzyme but you will turn the old one into gibberish, junk, you will destroy its abilty to perform a metabolic function. And once you are at the level of junk, an organism needs to create a new enzyme from scratch. So, your just so story presupposes that there are magic jumps between function A and function B. Unfortunately these jumps do net exist, they are nothing but a mental fantasy.

How does the selection pressure for "chemistry" reduces the resources needed to transform this gibberish: "ttufwefjkl" or this semantically correct word : "technology", into "chemistry"? I claimed that 10e43 resources are insufficient to find bio-functional solution. To backup my claim I provided the empirical evidence of structural niche which is filled with gamma repressor fold. Your response is this: your assumption is wrong, your assumption is wrong, your assumption is wrong. Can you finally explain why my assumption is wrong?

'Selection pressure' is just an evolutionary magic phrase since the word 'selection' describes the effect in which some structural on environmental niche has been fulfilled. And to fulfill the niche, functional solution must already be present in the gene pool of a population. If the population is in danger of extinction(pressure) that doesn't mean that you need less resources in the search for a functional solution. It just means that if solution is not found, organisms in that population will die. So, if one tries to appeal to 'selection pressures' this is like saying that the poor man stands a better chance of winning the lottery than the rich man because he is under financial pressure, which is nonsense. That is why you cannot provide a rational explanation of what 'selection pressure' is.

"Significant changes in morphological structures"... just means... changes. It doesn't mean meaningful changes, it doesn't mean functional changes, it doesn't mean changes needed to fulfil newly emerged structural on environmental niches. I know that everything is changing all the time in nature. Point? Everybody can make an appeal to change to explain everything. For example I can say that Moai figures on Easter Island are emergent property of changes caused by erosion process. The right constituents under the right circumstance result in the Moai figures. The constituents are the minerals or mineraloids, the circumstances we are yet investigating. Wind, rain, waves, ice, heat from the sun, acid rain... to name a few possible circumstances. And voil, I have a natural explanation for the origin of Moai figures. Can you explain how functional landscape of a bacteria is not far apart from a functional landscape of the gears found in the planthopper insect (Issus coleoptratus). You can't just point to the existing bio-structures that are similar and then claim that these structures are not far apart on their functional landscape. Of course they are not - they are similar. You need to explain how functional structures like gears, joints, ears, kidneys... came to be in the first place since the first self-replicating organism didn't had them. Of course I know this and of course I have demonstrated it to be true. If only 1 in 10e63 sequences contain the information that is required to fulfill a particular structural niche then there is a 99,9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 percent chance that the final consequence of the random walk will be junk. Or, in the words of the analogy: if you make a clay model of Statue of Liberty and then expose it to some random process that will change the position of clay particles(rain for e.g.), you won't end up with another meaningful clay model like Michelangelo's Pieta, but with some useless piece of clay, because there are infinitely more ways to arrange clay particles into distorted shape that into something meaningful. The same is true in biology. If the structural niche in the form of female reproductive system emerged, then to fulfill this niche you need meaningful arrangement of cells and molecules in the form of male reproductive system. But since there are infinitely more ways to arrange these cells or molecules into some junk that into male reproductive system, the simple fact is that there are not enough resources to fulfill the niche. You can keep pointing out, but you are just repeating the empty claims, lik Paul. You never proved that my citation was bogus. You just made an appeal to 'functional sequences in general'. Then I refuted your claim by pointing out that 'functional sequences in general' cannot neither perform specific biological functions, nor fulfil specific environmental niches.
You didn't reply to this, but instead, you keep repeating this mantra of yours that my citation was bogus.Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.

When evolutioists who argue that a particular physical result was achieved via small evolutionary steps, are left without arguments for their position, they always react in the same, easy predictable manner - they pull out false reductio ad absurdum argument in the folowing form - "no one (other than you) claims the we need to jump from A to B in one step. And of course, you did the same thing. You used the same false reductio ad absurdum.In logic, reductio ad absurdum is a form of argument which attempts either to disprove a statement by showing it inevitably leads to a ridiculous or absurd conclusion, or to prove one by showing that if it were not true, the result would be absurd or impossible.Example: Your friend says, "If I rub my lucky rabbit's foot, then I will do well on this test."
You respond, "So, if it brings good luck, then I need to rub it so that my mom's cancer will go away, and my dad will get a new job, and our family will win the lottery.In this example, the argument in the form: 'if I rub surface of a thing - desirable outcome will happen'... is obviously 'absurd', since everyone knows that subjecting the surface of a thing to pressure and friction is physically unrelated to events at other places and times.But, when evolutionists resort to this kind of argument they are not doing it because the statement they oppose leads to a ridiculous or absurd conclusion, but because this statement leads to a conclusion that evolution is false. And since by definition evolution cannot be false - then every argument against evolution is absurd by definition. Hence, all evolutionary responses are boiling down to this:If an argument shows that evolution couldn't have happened, then something must have happened in the past that is in line with evolution. Therefore, something did happen in the past, and the argument in question is absurd or false.So for example, we have an observation of functional gears in the planthopper insect. Given this observation evolutionist will immediately presuppose the existence of the small steps that were leading up to the gear, because given all the possible spatial arrangements that particles comprising the gear can adopt, it is physically impossible for the particles to adopt this specific gear structure. But, can the evolutionist show instances of 1 percent functional gear, 5 percent, 10, 20, 60... No, of course he can't. Can evolutionist provide a reasonable explanation for gradual, selective development of gear function? No, of course he can't. All that evolutionist can do is to presuppose the gradual development of gears because otherwise evolution would be false. And since by definition evolution cannot be false - then of course - gears were developed via step by step process and each and every argument against this position is absurd or false. This kind of behaviour is of course the textbook example of dogmatic reasoning. This is not my faulty requirement. This is a straw man you created just because you don't have the proper response. I never talked about one day jumps, one day resources, but about all the resources(10e43) that were available during a time span of more than 4. 5 billion years. All these resources were insufficient to turn a bacterium into a planthopper insect. In order to disprove evolution there is no need to clam that one day it's a bacterium the next day it's a leaf hopper insect. Instead, on the basis of the empirical evidence we can claim the following: one day it's a bacterium, in the next 4.5 billion years... it's a bacterium. Let me get this straight. I lifted the number out of context because I claimed that a particular bio-function - the gamma repressor fold - is an exceedingly small fraction of the total number of possible 92 AA sequences. Hence, I lifted the number out of context because I claimed that bio-functions are specific. Well, can you then explain to me how can you catalyse the transfer of electrons from NADH to coenzyme Q10 with the gamma repressor for example? My argument is that wehen the structural niche is opened that requires the ubiquinone oxidoreductase enzyme, we are left with an exceedingly small fraction of the total number of possible sequences that amino acides comprising this enzyme can adopt, just like in the example of the gamma repressor fold. "Other" functions are complety irrelevant in that context. In reality, specific solutions are needed in order to fulfil specific structural on environmental niches. So what exactly and how did I take out of context? Here you just repeated the same mantra: out of context, out of context , out of context.. but you didn't provide the evidence for your accusations. Can you please do that? Thanks.

The argument that I am talking about is just the tip of the iceberg. In practice, there are much deeper problems for evolution, one of which is the temporal and structural interdependence of cellular systems. For example, all cellular systems, processes and structures that enable the cell to live, grow and reproduce are temporaly constrained by the speed of chemical reaction that can takes place in fractions of a second or minute. Complete series of chemical events that take place in a cell leading to its division and replication generally lasts 12 to 24 hours in mammalian tissue. So, how could the bio-structures that are carriers of this events evolve over the course of many thousands or million years? Metabolic reactions, DNA replication, responding to stimuli, transporting molecules from one location to another.... all involve series of biochemical reactions that are connected by their intermediates - the product of one reaction is the substrate for subsequent reaction, and so on. So it is a continuous process that cannot be stoped or freezed in order for evolution to produce some enzyme in some random point in the future. If an enzyme is not present in the metabolic pathway when signaled by cell, resulting product will not be produced, cell will lose the ability to complete its cycle and die. In short, the effects responsible for the operation of temporarily constrained dynamical system cannot be caused by a temporarily unconstrained process like evolution.On the level of the whole organism we also have similar paradox, that we can call - the cycle paradox, which refers to a discrepancy between the cycle in which an organism reproduce and maintains its structure(RM cycle) and evolutionary cycle(Ev cycle). RM cycle is by definition shorter than E cycle which means that in order to be able to evolve, an organism needs the ability to reproduce and maintains its structure. Now, if bio-structures necessary to execute te RM cycle are temporary interconnected in time T and Ev cycle is by definition longer than T (RM cycle < Ev cycle) that it logically follows that evolution is physically impossible. Let's use the analogy to explain why. In an engine, parts like cylinder block, cylinder head, piston, crankshaft, engine bearing, spark plug etc., work together in a cycle(En cycle) to achieve the function of converting chemical energy of fuel into mechanical energy. Now, if we say that the above mentioned parts formed gradually via 'energy transformation function' of an engine then we are at an obvious contradiction since En cycle, that is necessary to produce these parts, cannot be executed if parts don't exist.Likewise, in an organism(e.g. human), organs like lungs, heart, blood vessels, stomach, liver, brain, nerves, prostate, penis, vagina..., etc., work together to achieve the function of reproduction and maintenance. Now, if we say that the above mentioned organs formed gradually via evolution then we are at an obvious contradiction since Ev cycle, that is necessary to produce these organs, cannot be executed if organs don't exist. It is easy to demonstrate with empirical science that deformation or removal of the above mentioned organs does not lead to some simpler mode of reproduction and maintenance but it leads to death or infertility, which means Ev cycle is not able to execute.All this is of course for some other discussion.Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.

Regardless of what you have been taught, 'evolving' has nothing to do with populations, but with individual organisms. Individual organisms are what live, die, and reproduce, not populations. Populations persist by virtue of the survival and reproduction of individual organisms. If you try to explain the evolution of a particular metabolic pathway that consists of 3 enzymes(A, B, C), the fact that the genetic material of one organism contains the instructions needed to build enzyme A, while the genetic materials of the other two organisms, instructions needed to build enzymes B and C, that does not mean that you have functional metabolic pathway. The fact that the gene pool of that 'population' contains all three alleles needed to build metabolic pathway, have nothing to do with evolution of this metabolic pathway.I know that evolutionists often change definitions and play semantic games, but biological reality won't change because of that. Population genetics deals with populations, while evolution does not. Evolution deals with an individual organism. Also, population genetics has nothing to do with the origin of alleles, but it is concerned only with their frequency in the gene pool of the population once they originated from mutations.But nevertheless this has nothing to do with my argument.My argument states that evolution if physically impossible due to the fundamental contradiction between 'maintenance and reproduction cycle' and 'evolution cycle'. In order to 'evolve'(to complete evolution cycles) an organism needs the ability to maintain its structure and pass its genes to the next generation. Now, if we say that bio-structures that are needed for maintenance and reproduction cycle - evolved, than we are actually saying that in the past these bio-structures didn't exist. In other words if organs like lungs, heart, blood vessels, stomach, liver, brain, nerves, prostate, penis, vagina..., etc., work together to achieve the function of reproduction and maintenance and then we say that for e.g. heart evolved then we are actually saying that in the past this type of organism didin't have heart. But we know from the direct observation that this type of organism cannot complete its maintenance and reproduction cycle without a heart. Hence, it cannot evolve to produce the heart. This is true for all other organs - stomach, brain, penis... - without them, maintenance and reproduction are impossible.This is also true for all other organisms(other types of maintenance and reproduction), like bacterium. Most bacteria rely on binary fission for propagation. Before binary fission occurs, the cell must copy its genetic material and segregate these copies to opposite ends of the cell. Then the many types of proteins that comprise the cell division machinery assemble at the future division site. A key component of this machinery is the protein FtsZ. Protein monomers of FtsZ assemble into a ring-like structure at the center of a cell. Other components of the division apparatus then assemble at the FtsZ ring. This machinery is positioned so that division splits the cytoplasm and does not damage DNA in the process. As division occurs, the cytoplasm is cleaved in two, and in many bacteria, new cell wall is synthesized. The systems for order and timing of these processes are also needed.Now, if we say that some bio-structure that is needed for binary fission -evolved, than we are actually saying that in the past this bio-structure didn't exist which means that in the past bacteria was unable to pass its genes to the next generation. And without the ability of bacteria to pass genes to the next generationthat evolution of bacteria is impossible.This is the direct, empirical science, and according to it, evolution is physically impossible - maintenance and reproduction apparatus of an organisam simply cannot exist in a simpler mode to become more complex in the future.Let's not go to the level of storytelling and fiction. So, how do evolutionists respond to this kind of argument? Well since evolution is by definition true, then the only possible answer is this: the fact that a human cannot live without a heart is irrelevant, because there are organisms that are alive but don't have a heart. Hence, evolutionist will just pull some mental construct out of his mind and pretend that the problem is solved. But where is the fault in his reasoning?Well, it has a hidden assumption that the existance of different modes of maintenance and reproduction in nature automatically means that the path from one mode to another exist. This is like saying, because differnet modes of energy conversion exist, for example, simple lawn mower engine and complex Ferrari engine, there is a step by step path from lawn mower engine to Ferrari engine. It that were true, then the removal of Ferrari engine components would result in some simpler engine with retained energy conversion funtction and ultimately, in lawn mower engine. But we know this is not true. Component removal will result in nothing but malfunctioned engine. So in reality, step by step path from one mode of energy conversion to another does not exist. If the Ferrari engine were the result of a step by step design process, with retained energy conversion funtction at every step, then component removal would not result in malfunctioned engine but in some simpler engine with retained energy conversion funtction.Exactly the same is true for organisms. If bio-structures needed for maintenance and reproduction were evolved through a gradual series of tiny steps, by adding structures one step at a time, then their removal would not result in death or infertility but in some simpler mode of maintenance and reproduction . But since direct, empirical science shows this is not the case, the hidden assumption that the existance of different modes of maintenance and reproduction in nature, means that the path from one mode to another exist is false.That is why evolution is just a mental fantasy which contradicts reality on every instance of observation.Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.

I know that in evolutionary theory populations can evolve, because ToE is a mental concept, and at the level of concepts everything is possible. The theory of evolution started with the concept of divergence. When this concept was falsified the concept of convergence was produced. The theory of evolution also started with the concept of nice branching pattern. When this concept was falsified the concept of incomplete lineage sorting was produced. The theory of evolution started with the concept of descent with modification and now is at the concept of populations with modification. So who gives a crap of what the evolutionary theory is? This is just the collection of unfalsifiable mental fantasies, just so stories and anecdotes that is totally unrelated to biological reality.

You can repeat your mantra all you want, but it's not going to change the fact that individual organisms are what live, die, and reproduce, not populations. And in order to have evolution you need reproduction.

The theory of evolution started as valid, falsifiable theory. When its key hypothesis has been falsified and replaced with unfalsifiable ad hoc hypothesis, like convergence and incomplete lineage sorting, then it became unfalsifiable.
That is why I sad that the current ToE is just the collection of unfalsifiable mental fantasies, just so stories and anecdotes.Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.

This is not the evidence but just quotes and empty claims. You need to provide an actual, logical step by step explanation.Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.

Well the fact is that we don't know ANY hypothetical step in the hypothetical history of the evolution because nobody was there to witness it. These unverifiable narrative explanations for the origin of bacterial flagella, the eye and the human immune system are just collection of just so stories that are in contradiction with empirical science. If eye for example, were evolved through a gradual series of tiny steps, by adding structures one step at a time, then step by step removal or deformation of these structures would not result in blindness but in some simpler mode of vision. Since this is not he case, your narrative explanations for the origin of the eye are just pseudoscientific mental fantasies.Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.

Your claims are too ambiguous to be meaningful. There is nothing of substance worth rebutting.

No, what I really mean is "Can an evolutionist provide a reasonable explanation for a gradual development of complex systems without presupposing something that is contradicted by direct empirical science. If system like eyes evolved through a gradual series of tiny steps then why does the step by step removal or deformation of eye components results in blindness and not in some simpler mode of vision? Presupposing that eyes evolved gradually without even considering this empirical question is what makes the evolution theory pseudoscience.Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.